1^, 



/^ .P35 

Copy 1 

ANNEXATION OF HAWAII. 
"lF6'S<«"<n7i <//t' course of cmjjirc talcs its a-ayP 



SPEECH 



HON. CHARLES E. PEARCE, 

OF MISSOURI, 



HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES, 



JUNE 14, 1898. 



"WASHING 'X'o^r. 

1898. 






68554 



^ ? SPEECH 



^■, 



^THON. CHAELEB E. PEAECE. 
^ . _ 

The House having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 259) to 
provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States- 
Mr. PEARCE of Missouri said: 

Mr. Speaker: 1 listened with deep and pleasnreable interest on 
Friday last to the very eloquent argument of my learned friend 
from Arkansas [Mr. DixsjiORii], because, however much I may 
disagree with him in his views, I have come to know that he is a 
fair debater, and I sought to learn from the views which he pre- 
sented on the subject the gist of the contention against the reso- 
lutions which are before us for consideration. He gave us much 
generality over the alleged unconstitutionality of this proceeding, 
but without soing into an extended discussion of the question, I 
sincerelv hope that some gentleman who succeeds me in this de- 
bate will take the trouble to point out one single sentence, or line, 
or word of the Constitution of the United States that contravenes 
the adoption of these resolutions. It is a matter of history familiar 
to everybody that every square mile of territory which has becjn 
annexed to the United States since the foundation of the Govern- 
ment has been so annexed under the "'general welfare" clause of 
the Constitution. 

The Louisiana Territory, embrac"ng 1,179.931 square miles, was 
annexed under that provision in ISO^J: Florida, embracing r)9.268 
square mi es, was annexed under it in 1819; Te.^as, embracing 
370,1:30 square miles, was annexed under it in 1845; New JMe.\ico 
and California, embracing 54.'). 78dsqiiare miles, were annexed under 
it in 1848: the Gadsden purchase, embracing 45.5:;5 scjuare miles, 
was made in pursuance of it m 185l!; Alaska, embracing 577,o90 
s;]Uare miles, was annexed under it in 18(57; and under it it is pro- 
posed to annex the Territory of Hawaii, with its 7,000 square mi.es, 
in this year of our Lord 1898. 

The constitutional questions connected with these various trans- 
actions, by which the national area has been increased from first 
to last nearly ;},000,0()0 square milt'S. have been passed upun time 
anil tiine again by the Supreme Court of the United States, and I 
had sui)i)osed until this hour that the right of annexing foreign 
teiriiory was a settled question and not open to furtlier discus- 
sion excepting for a filibuster against the propo'-ed resoltitions. 

My learned friend has announced an apparently unique discov- 
ery, l)ttt which in point of fact is well known to everyone who 
has ever studied the map of the world or has traveled upon tlie 
2 31)8 



Pacific Ocean; he statos to us that the distance from San Fran- 
cisco via Unahiska to Hon.u-kong, and of course to the Philippine 
Ishmds, is shorter as a sailing route than the distance from San 
Francisco to the same points via Honolulu, and therefore the ac- 
quisition of the Hawaiian Islands is an unnecessary measure fov 
purposes of publi<; defense. 

It is true that there is a port at Unalaska: it is also true that 
the nortliern route from San Francisco to Hongkong and to the 
Philippine Islands is shorter than the route via Honolulu; it is 
also true that the Empress Line of steamers, an English line 
which sails Irom Vancouver to Yokohama and thence to Hong- 
kong, crosses the Pacific Ocean within sight of the Aleutian 
Islands. I mvself have been over thai route, and so has the gen- 
tleman from Arkansas, and the statement which he makes in re- 
gard to it is unquestionably true. But, Mr. Speaker, what does 
that prove? Does it establish the conlention that the annexation 
of the Hawaiian Islands is an undesirable act upon the part of 
this Government? Does it establish the conteniion that those 
islands are not necessary to the proper defense of the Pacific coast? 
By no means. 

Suppose, for instance, that the Hawaiian Islands should pass 
under the control of the English Government, a contingency not 
altogether improbable or remote if we do not take them in our- 
selves. Now, draw a line from Vancouver or Esquimalt to the 
Hawaiian Islands, a distance of a little more than 2,000 miles; 
draw another line from the Havraiian Islands to the Isthmus of 
Panama, a distance of a little more than 4,000 mi'es; consider the 
fact that the Hawaiian Islands extend from north to south a dis- 
tance of 400 miles, and take into consideration the military aspects 
of that situation, with the English Government fortified at Esqui- 
malt commanding the outlet of Puget Sound, fortified at Hou- 
olulu and Pearl Harbor, and fortified at the western terminus of 
the isthmian canal, and is it not conclusive that under this pro- 
posed condition of things the entire Pacific coast will be at the 
mercy of the British Government in the contingency of war? Let 
me inform you. gentlemen, that the English Government has 
already acquired an exclusive franchise upon Lake Nicaragua, 
and has been seeking an isthmian route across the narrow neck 
of land that separates North and South America. For this rea- 
son, Mr. Speaker, if for no other, the acquisition of the Hawaiian 
Islands at this time seems to me to be not only a desirable but a 
necessary measure on the part of the people of the United States. 
But, say my learned friend from Arkansas [Mr. Dinsmoke] and 
also my learned friend from Tennessee [Mr, RiciiardsonI, the 
acquisition of the Hawaiian Islands will mark a new era in the 
history of our country, and that by it we will enter upon a great 
expansive colonial policv, the end of which no man can measure. 
Mr. Speaker, not one intimation of a colonial policy has ever been 
connected with the acqirisition of the Hawaiian Islands. This 
question has occupied the thought of our country for over fifty 
years. There never has been and is not now advanced any jtropo- 
sition to annex Hawaii as a colonial possession of the United 
States, and there is no point whatsoever in the contention that 
this annexation, in any form, manner, or shape, commits either 
Congress or any gentleman who votes for annexation to a colonial 
policy. 

I am myself at the present time opposed to such a policy, not as 
a question of legal and constitutional right, but simply and solely 
as a question of wisdom; and unless the exigencies of the future 

31.58 



shall lead lue to modify my judgment in that regard, I shall 
remain in opposition to such a policy. What may become neces- 
sary lor us to do in settling the details of a future treaty of peace 
wth iSpain no man can tell. No one would be reckless enough 
to commit himself upon that subject. Let me call your attention 
to the treaty itself, made by the present Administration and the 
Government of Hawaii in 18'J7. 1 quote the language of the 
treaty: "'And it is a2;reed that all the territory of and appertaining 
to the Republic ot Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States 
of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii." So that 
u]ion the consummation of this transac ion the relation of the 
United States Government to Hawaii will become exactly the 
same as the relation of the United States Government to Alasi^a 
at the prespnt time. 

Mr. DINSMORE. Will it interrupt my friend if I ask him a 
question in this connection? 

Mr. PEARi:E of Missouri. By no means; not at all. 

Mr. DlNSMOlxE. I should like my friend to state to the House 
whether he can trace any relation between that detuuct treaty 
and these resolutions. 

Mr. PEARC'E of Missouri, It has not yet transpired that the 
treaty referred to by my friend is in any sense defunct. It stands 
before the Senate to-day as an open question. But irrespective of 
whether it is or not defunct, these resolutions if adopted by Con- 
gress will be carried out upon the lines of that treaty, and the 
honor and good faith of the people of the United Slates require 
and will demand that they shall be carried out upon those lines. 
When the Hawaiian Islands are taken in under the sovereignty of 
the United States Government, they will come to us as the Terri- 
tory of Hawaii, and in no other form, and there are ample provi- 
sions in these resolutions for such a consummation. 

This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to answer another qaestion pro- 
pounded during this debate by nearly every gentieman who has 
occupied a position of antagonism to the pending measiire, and 
that is, "What are you going to do with these islands? How 
are you going to govern them?" This question seems to be a great 
obstacle in the way of very many of my friends who have taken 
part m this discussion. Of course I can not tell, nor can any 
other man tell, what the Congress of the United States will do in 
reference to this question, or what provision of government it will 
legislate into existence. I can only express my own opinion upon 
that subject, and whether it be worth much or little, if 1 should 
happen to be in Congress when the subject comes to be dealt with, 
1 can tell you without any hesitation what I will do. I will vote 
for a Territorial government in Hawaii. In my opiiiion it will 
have a Territorial governor, it will have a Territorial legislature 
and judicial officers, a government, in short, of the same or s:milar 
character as that which exists in Arizona, in New Mexico, in 
Oklahoma, and in Alaska, with such modifications, of course, as 
may be suitable to the present or future condition of things. 
Peop'O who imagine that the constitutional electors of Hawaii are 
incap'able of self-government, or are lacking in intelligence, or 
are unlettered or illiterate are very much mistaken. I have my- 
self no trouble upon that subject, and it does not constitute the 
slightest obstacle in my judgment. I greatly wonder why any 
gentleman on this floor shoiilJ have any trouble upon this subject. 
But, says my good friend from Arkansas [Mr. Dinsmore], the 
people of Hawaii were not consulted, and therefore we should not 

3458 



take them into our system of government. Let my honorablo 
friend from Arkansas, or any otlier gentleman on this floor, tell 
me when in the history of our country, during all the proceedings 
by which we annexed and incorporated nearly ;j,UU0,00l> square 
miles of additional territory, the question of annexation was ever 
submitted to the people of either the territory annexed or of the 
United States to be acted upon by a direct vote? 

Mr. DINSMORE, I will suggest to the gentleman the case of 
Texas. , ^ , 

Mr. PEAROE of Missouri. My friend says Texas. I expected 
that suggestion. Of course we all know the details of the history 
of the annexation of Texas, and it is needless to relate them here. 
But perhaps you all do not know one fact in connection with that 
transaction. The annexation of Texas was first sought by a treaty 
which failed of passage through the United States Senate, but it 
was the basis of another and subsequent treaty, and the endeavor 
to secure the result finally terminated in resolutions which passed 
the House of Representatives and afterwards the Senate and be- 
came a law by the approval of the Executive. After those reso- 
lutions were passed the legislature of Texas was convened, and a 
convention of the people was summoned to consider the then 
pending propositions. , , , . 

A constitution was drafted and was adopted by both the legis- 
lature and the convention, and later the people were called upon 
to vote upon the ratification of the acts which had been done by 
those bodies. The main (luestiou at this time was the adoption of 
the constitution, and the question of annexation was merely inci- 
dental. Yet, Mr. Speaker, although the population of Texas at 
that time, exclusive of Indians, was over 130,U00, only about 4,100 
votes were cast for ratification. Only 4,000 votes out of a popu- 
lation of more than 100,000. Now, I invite you to compare that 
vote with the present case. The people of the Hawaiian Islands 
for more than fifty years have been living under a constitution 
granted to them by the third Kamehameha, and that constitii- 
tion from the outset has prescribed the qualifications of electors. 

The provisions of this instrument, although changed at various 
times by the Hawaiian Legislatiire, has never taken away the right 
of suffrage from the people. It existed in the time of Kalakaua, 
and it was one of the prominent reasons which led the late Queen 
Liliuokalani to attempt the overthrow of the constitutional rights 
of the people and to bring about a return to the absolutism of the 
early kings. The present constitution also prescribes the qualifi- 
cations of electors, and the qualified electors of Hawaii who have 
spoken upon this subject, directly or indirectly, constitute as large 
a percentage of the population of Hawaii as did the votes cast 
upon the ratification oi: the annexation of Texas taken in compar- 
ison with the population of that State. 

I was exceedingly glad to learn from the speech of my good 
friend from Arkansas [Mr. Dinsmore] that amid all the reasons 
why the Hawaiian Islands should not be annexed to the United 
States he freely and frankly admitted that there was one po-wer- 
fal consideration in favor of these resolutions. He says that the 
possession of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States would 
greatly increase the power of the American Government to keep 
foreign nations off our shores. In (iod's name, what else do we 
want them for, looking at the subject from a military point of 
view? We are not seeking the ac(iuisition of the Hawaiian 
Islands to make aggressive war upon the rest of mankind. 

The possession of the islands lor purposes of public defens? is 

3i58 



the exact point, and the only point, for which I am arguing and 
contending. One of the great reasons why we want and must 
have those islands is to make it aiisolii ely impossible forafot-eign 
goveiTiment to assail us, and especially to render it impossible for 
an Asiatic power, with an Asiatic religion, to seat iiseif w.thin 
2,000 mle^ of our Pacific coast. In my judgment no admiss.on 
could be made that would constitute a stronger argument for the 
alopt on or these resolutions tlian the fair and honest statement 
of my honorable fr;end from Arkansas (Mr. D^xsmore]. 

Another pomt of difficulty which troubles my friends who op- 
pose this measure is t-.ie question of tne cost o:' maintenance. 
Upon that queition the records of the Hawaiian (J-A-eram-'nt 
fm'n sh us valuable information. Aggregating the pnhlic reve- 
nues from 1878 to I49i. and decucting from the aggregate the ex- 
penditures during the same period of time, we find that for a 
period of fourteen years the expenditure over revenue is only 
§;0.>.")34. notwithstanding the fact that during that period the 
islands suifered two revolutions, with all the extraordinary ex- 
penses incident thereto. In ]8'J6 thepublic revenues were §1,997, - 
818 and the aggregate expenditures were $1,901,190, leaving a bal- 
ance to the credit of the Government on December ol, i80o, of 
$9o.G27. Under any reasonable administration of affairs by an 
intelligent territorial government tne Hawaiian Islands can be 
made fully self-supporting. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, whatever views people may have heretofore 
had upon th^s subject, whether those views have been upon general 
political lines or whether they have proc;eeded upon commercial 
lines, we are to-day confronted with the condition of war. and we 
are compe led to consider this question from a standpoint which 
the oi^ponents of annexation have always heretofore scouted as a 
possibility too remote to constitute a reasonable argument. 
Whether we will or no, we are compelled to look at this subject 
from that standpoint and legislate with reference to it. 

With a voice almost unanimous the people of the United States 
have declared at the polls and through us, their representatives, 
that the island of Cuba shall be hereafter free from the sovei-- 
eignty of Spain. To make that declaration good and to compel 
a recognition of that independence by Spain we have declared 
war up<m that Government. By our unanimous voice we have 
authorized and directed the President of the United St ites to em- 
ploy the entire military and naval power of the country, and also 
its matoriiil resources, and have charged him with the tremendous 
responsibility of conducting that war to a successful issue. Hav- 
ing done that, having charged him with this great and solemn 
res])onsibiiity. we can not, wiihout stultifjing ourselve-, with- 
hold from him any measure which he thinks is necessary to bring 
that consummation about. 

In the performance of the duties laid upon him by the people 
and by Congress, he has aright to ask for any provision, no matter 
what it may be. that will either contribute to the power of attack 
or w.ll fortify our own country against every contingency that 
can p )ssibly arise out of a state of war. We are not playing a 
- game of politics or diplomacy to-day. It is war. and in it is bound 
up not only the freedom of Cuba but the national honor of our 
own counti-y. That which a few months ago was thought to be 
too remote for serious consideration is to-day a stern and una'ter- 
ablo fact. I care not what your views or my views upon this sub- 
joft might be under ordinary circnmstances. It is today a meas- 
ure of war, and as such it stands before this Congress, and I envy 

.•U;Vl 



not the man who, after havhig laid upon the Presitlent the duty of 
aggressive attack and also of providing a complete system of har- 
bor and coast-line defense, stops now to split hairs over historical 
precedents or judicial interpretations of constitutional law. 

1 envy not the man who in these days of armed conflict wnll 
withhold from the President any measure of legislation which in 
his judgment or in the judgment of his war council is deemed 
necessary to make his efforts effective. No amount of caviling 
as to whether the recommendations of the President or the action 
of Congress were right or wrong, justifiable or unjustiiiai)le; no 
philanthropic feelings over the sacrifices already made or which 
shall be made in the future; no protest over the expenditure of 
money which has been or shall become necessary; no measuring 
of cause or effect: no predictions as to whether this conflict shall 
be fought out by Spain and the United States, or whether all the 
nations of Europe will be involved before the end shall be reached, 
can avail one jot or tittle to change the grim unalterable fact that 
we are in a state of war. 

Already the field of operations embraces one-third of the water 
area of the world. Where its limitations will be three months 
hence no man can tell. Ninety days ago not a man in this House 
would have ventured the prediction that the first scene of the great 
drama would open upon the coast of Asia. We thought we were 
going straightway to Cuba. We never dreamed that the first 
victory of American arms would be in the far-oijf archipelago of 
the Philippines. 

Who will venture to predict what the next scene of this swift- 
moving drama will reveal? Will it be the intervention of the 
powers to compel Spain to surrender Cuba ? Will it be a protest 
by France against the impairment of her bonded security in 
Spanish domains, or will it be a German demand for joint occu- 
pancy or division of the conquered territory? Will the United 
States settle this business by force of arms, as she has started to 
settle it, with Spain alone, or will the next shifting of the scenes 
reveal an European alliance to protect Spain from destruction, or 
to play the role of Russia in the late war between China and 
Japan? No man can tell what lies in the future, and in the early 
future. , . ^. , 

While the purposes of the United States m this conflict are di- 
rected to freeing the Western Hemisphere from a despotism which 
for four centuries has been a blight upon civilization and a curse 
to downtrodden millions of the human race, no man in this pres- 
ence will dare to say that the American flag, once planted in a just 
and holy w^ar. at home or abroad, shall ever be removed except by 
the free act of the American Government. 

But, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, while this is unquestionably the 
high resolve of the American people, it is yoixr duty and the duty of 
ns all as legislators, as citizens, as patriotic lovers of our country, to 
discard all our preconceived notions about the desirability or non- 
desirability of the Hawaiian Islands, and to do that which will 
strengthen our Army and our Navy, and to see to it that every pre- 
paration which statesmanship and human ingenuity can devise 
shall be made, to meet not only the exigencies of the war with Spain , 
but also every possibleexigency that may folio waEuropean alliance 
created to take from the hands of the United States Government the 
settlement of the questions which may logically arise out of this 
conflict. 

I do not know that such an alliance will come to iiass. ■ It is 
enough for me to Imow that it is or.e of the possibilities of tin 
3458 



8 

future, a possibility which has some threatening: aspects at the 
present time. Notwithstanding the bold and remarkable state- 
ment of Mr, Chamberlain, I do not beiieve in re.ymg upon the 
sympathetic interference of Great Britain, or of Japan, or of any 
other co'.intxy. I woual rather rely upon the physical stren.ufth 
and resourceful power of our own 7'o.OJL>,U0a liberty-loving people 
than upon the sympathy of any foreign nation, however friendly, 
or upon all Europe combined.' God helps those who help them- 
selves. 

Mr. Sp^a'ker, we have had a rude awakening since this crisis 
began. Fortunately for us. and perhaps fortuuate for the world, 
we have had to deal with a nation intinitely weaker than ourselves 
in material resources, and as illy prepared to meet the exigencies 
of a great war. Less than five years ago nearly 1,000 cities and 
towns located upon open ports and upon tributary streams along 
and contigu: ms to our 5,00J miles of coast were absolutely de ense- 
less against foreign attack. Five years ago the Navy of the United 
States was the weakest of the first-class powers and. for lack of mu- 
nitions and crews practiced m the service of modern ordnance, was 
comparatively useless for offensive or defensive war; and yet, Mr. 
Speaker, we were asserting against every nation in Europe a doc- 
trine of exclusion from the Western Hemisphere, never recognized 
as a tenet of mternat'.onal law. and depending alone for its main- 
tenance upon the moral influence of this Republic. However just 
and nec&^sary the Monroe doctrine may be from our standpoint of 
view, and however deep-rooted it may be in the conscience of the 
American people, it is unquestionably an affront to every nation 
in Europe, and is to-day acknowledged with illy concealed reluc- 
tance by Japan in her relations with the Hawaiian Islands. 

I warn gentlemen on this floor that we have seen enough in the 
last twelve mouths to satisfy any reflecting man, that the perpetu- 
ation of the Monroe doctrme can only be made possible by the 
speedy development of the naval power of the United States up 
to a degree of efficiency that will enable us at all times to suc- 
cessfully resist the encroachments of any government on earth. 
What does this involve, Mr. Speaker? Shall we rely upon the in- 
tegrity of foreign alliances? Why, sir, no such convention was 
ever made anywhere or at any time but it was torn into shreds at 
the dictation of sell-interest or by the shitting demands of on- 
coming exigencies. 

I venture the assertion that if Congress had given heed twenty 
years ago to the warnings which have been iterated and reter- 
ated over and over again on this floor, every American port would 
to-day be impregnable against assault, our Navy won d be peer- 
less upon the seas, no war with Spaia would ever have occurred, 
three hundred millions of money would have been saved, Cuba 
would l>e free, her people, wasted by starvation and savagery, 
would be on the high road of progress, and the Maine, instead of 
rotting i encath the loathsome waters of Havana Harbor with her 
murdered crew, would be riding the waves. 

1 ask auain. Mr. Speaker, what does the maintenance of the 
Monroe doctrine involve? We are not so wise, our rights and 
responsibilities are not so small, our statesmanship is not so far- 
seeing, but that we can learn a lesson of wisdom from our com- 
petitors in the race for nalionil development. Witn the advent 
of steam as a motive power Great Britain, without halting for the 
evolution of the future, began iunnediately to reconstruct her 
navy. New armaments and dry docks followed hard after, and 
ai58 



9 

then began the establishment of that wonderful system of supply 
stations which to-day belt the world. While continental Europe 
and America remained wrapped up in the conservatism of the 
fathers. Great Britain pushed forward into the new order of 
things until at every coigne of militp.ry and commercial vantage, 
at Gibraltar, at Malta, at Port Said, at Aden, at Bombay, at 
Calcutta, at Madras, at Colombo, at Singapore, at Sydney, at 
Melbourne, at New Zealand, at Hongkong, at Victoria,- and at 
Vancouver, she sits intrenched with hmitiess stores to reenforce 
her naval power. For the purposes of th s consideration it mat- 
ters not whether we pra se or condemn her foreign and colonial 
policy. She sits complacent behind her naval ramparts, mistress 
of the seas, with incalcuhible powers of defense and olfense, 
able and ready to vindicate her sovereignty everywhere, and to 
guarantee at all times safety to every advance agent of her com- 
mercial enterprise. 

Ages before Columbus lifted the veil from the Western Hemi- 
sphere Asiatic commerce was the pursuit of empires. Along its 
shifting routes, from the Phoenicians down to the present day, 
great cities have risen and passed away, their aggran^lizement and 
decay inexorably measured by tbeir ability to adapt themselves to 
new developments or by their disposition to hold on to obsolete 
and worn-out systems. Constantinople, Genoa, Venice. Lisbon, 
and Amsterdam have each in its day gathered wealth and splendor 
from the inexhaustible stores of the Orient, and each has fallen 
from leadership in proportion as it has kept its eye on the past 
rather than upon the future. England, looking behind, saw the 
cities of the Mediterranean rise and fall with the shifting of con- 
trol over the great thoroughfares to Asia. Looking into the 
future, she saw a great productive population gathering upon the 
eastern coast of America, spreading in great waves over a conti- 
nent, subduing mountains and harnessing rivers to its uses, 
while it reached out across the Pacific for a share in that won- 
derful commerce. Foreseeing the magnitude of this new com- 
petition, she bought the control of the Suez Canal, deepened and 
widened its channel, enlarged her ship capacity from 3,500 to 
7,000 tons, and reduced her freight charges from $7 to $3 per long 
ton. Not content with that provision of security, she built a 
transcontinental railway through Canada and established a steam- 
ship hne from Vancouver to China and Australia. Not content 
with that provision, she undertook to gain a lodgment at the 
mouth of the Orinoco, in defiance of the Monroe doctrine, and ia 
to-day reaching for an isthmian route to the Indies, to fortify 
and still further facilitate her monopoly of oriental commerce. 

Now, what is all this to us? In the first pbice, Mr. Speaker, 
it emphasizes the fact that while the development of the American 
Navy is absolutely essential to the maintenance of the Monroe 
doctrine, and to the development of our commerce with foreign 
nations, and to the protection of our own coast against foreign 
attack, a navy without practicable and defensible coaling stations 
is as useless as an army withoiit food. 

No man can foresee the potentiality of the forces which are gath- 
ering on the Asiatic coast. With Great Britain in India, in Poly- 
nesia, in the Malachian Straits, and in Hongkong, with France 
in Cambodia, with Russia in Manchuria, with Germany in her 
newly acquired Chinese ports, and with Japan pushi7ig forward 
with prodigious strides, it is apparent on the face of the situation 
that the United States must either surrender the commerce which 
345S 



10 

slie has already acquired or she must fortify herself by all the 
means known to the establishment of commercial power, and 
which have been advantageous agencies in the experience of com- 
peting nations. 

It is for these reasons, looking at the subject from a stand- 
point ot national defense and national progress, that I have ior 
many years advocated the peaceful acquisition of the Hawaiian 
Islands. I happen to have been twice in the Hawaiian Islands. 
I was there lirst in 18j1, and as a result of that visit I became 
and have ever since remained an ardent advocate of annexation, 
believing that action to be not onl}' desirable but necessary, and 
both not only from a military but from a commercial pomt of 
view. I am not guided by any party or political declarations 
ui'on this subject. I was thoroughly convinced years ago that 
the acquisition of these islands, with the facilities afforded in 
Pearl Harbor, was absolutely necessary in order to a successful 
defense of our Pacific coast. 

From a militai-y point of view the most interesting feature in 
these islands is the harbor which I have already mentioned. It 
is situated in the island of Oahu, about 7 miles from the city 
of Honolulu. The distance from the harbor to the open sea is 
about 4 miles, and they are connected by a naiTOw passage not 
more than a third of a mile in width. At the outer end of this 
passage there is a sand lar, easily removable at a cost of about 
$100, 000. In this harbor there are 3 square miles of water which 
is from 5 to 10 fathoms deep, and an area of smaller size from 2 
to 4 fathoms in depth. The locality is free from storms of suffi- 
cient severity to endanger shipping, and in the neighborhood aro 
abundant supplies of fresh and healthful water. 

The harbor approaches are easily defensible, and it is calciilated 
by military experts that §500,000 will make it substantially im- 
pregnable against naval attacks. Here the entire American Navy 
can ride in absolute security. There are no other inclosed har- 
bors in the entire group, and none other exists for thousands of 
miles west or south. Throughout the eastern two-thirds of the 
North Pacific Ocean it is the only place available as a naval and 
coaling station outside the American coast. The control of Pearl 
Harbor, therefore, gives to the nation which holds it the mastery 
of the Pacific Ocean north of the Equator, and it is, therefore, of 
incalculable strategic value to the United States. A foreign 
power possessing Pearl Harbor would be within easy striking dis- 
tance of the Pacific coast, and in case of war would have the 
ability to speedily annihilate, not only American commerce on the 
open Pacific Ocean, but also our coastwise trade, from Alaska to 
its southernmost point. 

What stronger argument for the possession of the Hawaiian Is- 
lands can be conceived of than the fact that our Philippine fleet, 
if compelled by the exigencies of war or by stress of weather to 
abandon its preFent vantage ground, has no place of safety or 
supply short of the harbor of San Francisco, and is subject, while 
perhaps in a crippled condition, to pursuit and attack throughout 
that entire distance until within the sheltering embrace of the 
Golden Gate? 

Captain Mahan, whose splendid essay upon sea power has ex- 
cited the applause of the world, says in a recent paper: 

It is not praf:tieat)lo for any transpacific country to invade oiir Pacific 
coast witlioiit occupying Hawaii as a base. 
3 5< 



11 

And further: 

It Ls obvious that if wc do not hold tlioso islands oiirsolves wo can not expect 
tho nontralM in t ho war to prevent tho other Ix-lli^erents from oecnpyiiig 
them, nor can the iuliahitants themselves pri^veut it. In sliort. wo Hhould 
need a larger navy to defend tho Pacific coast, because wo should have to not 
only defend our own coast but to prevent bj- naval force an enemy from oc- 
cupying the islan Is, whereas if wo preoccupied them fortifications would 
preserve them to us. 

Another eminent anthority, George Melville, Chief Engineer of 
the United States Navj', saj's: 

Hawaii bridges the stretch of seas, which, without the island group, would 
be. at this stage in the development of marine propulsion, impassalile to aa 
eneiiiy'.s Heet. Pearl Harbor is tho sole key to the full delenso of our west- 
ern coast, and that key should lie in our grasp only. 

It does not make a particle of difference what the condition of 
China is to-day. In the philosophy of that mysterious people, 
"waiting" is the nio^t God-like of human virtues — all things 
come to him who waits. It matters not how friendly Japan is 
under present circumstances. It is of no importance that Eng- 
land and Russia are engrossed in a contest lor commercial su- 
premacy in the far East. There is not an exigency in the great 
draraa of the world's politics to-day that may not be shifted into 
new rf^lations and unexpected contests to-morrow. 

While Pearl Harhor can be made a veritable Gibraltar in point 
of impregnability, it forma an unxiaralleled vantage ground from 
which a naval force can sail with a full equipment of coal and 
munitions for attack in any quarter. Again says this eminent 
authority: 

Pearl Harbor would form a first lino of defense, and an enemy from the 
open sea would violate some of the cardinal principles of naval strategy and 
invite sure disaster in attacking our western coast without first blockading 
or defeating tho Hawaiian squadron. 

Says Admiral Belknap: 

A glance at a chart of the Pacific will indicate to the most casual observer 
the great importance and inestimable value of this island as a strategic point. 
Indeed, it would seem that nature had established that gi'oup to be ultimately 
occupied as an outpost, as it were, of the great Repul)lic on its western bor- 
der, and that the time had now come for the fulfillment of said design. 

Lieutenant-General Schofield, after a personal examination of 
the Hawaiian Islands, expressed the following cogent views: 

I have ahvays regarded the ultimate annexation of the islands as a public 
necessity. I hp^vo likened that harbor to a commanding pusition in front of 
a defensive line which the army in the field is compelled to occupy. The 
army must occupy that advance position and hold it at whatever cost or else 
the enemy will occupy it with his artillery and dominate the main line. If 
we do not occupy and fortify Pearl Harbor, our enemy will occupy it as a 
base from which "tj> conduct operations against our Pacific cnast and the 
Isthmian Canal. One of tho great advantages of Pearl Harbor to us con.sista 
in the fact that no navy would bo required to defend it. It is a deep land- 
locked arm of tho sea, easily defended by fortifications placed near its mouth, 
with its anchorage beyond the reacli of guns from tho ocean. Cruisers and 
other war ships which might be overpowered at sea. as well as merchant ves- 
sels, would find there beyond the land defenses absolute security against 
naval attack. 

The following is the opinion of Admiral Dupont on this phase 
of tho subject: 

It is imjKjssible to estimate too highly tho value and importance of the 
Sandwich Islands, whether in a commercial or military point of view. Should 
circumstances place them in our hands, they would prove a most important 
acquisition intimately connected with our commercial supremacy in those 
seas. 

The unqualified and concurring judgment of these distinguished 
scientists do not by any means stand alone. Everybody who has 
examined thestibject from the standpoint of nat onai defense, and 
whose opinion is entitled to consideration, is equally emphatic, 

3158 



12 

whereas not a strategist of experience and recognized ability has 
ever presented an opinion contrary to the expressions which I 
have taken the liberty to quote. Whatever views members may 
have upon other phases of the subject, unquestionably from a 
military standpoint the acquisition of the Havraiian Islands 
stands b3fore Congress as a measure equal, if not superior, in im- 
portance and urgency to the construction of the Nicaraguau 
Canal. 

Mr. Speaker, I have a prof ound respect and an instinctive feeling 
of deference for the opinions of the distinguished ex-Secretary of 
State who has just retired to private life after a career unsur- 
passed by that of any American statesman for usefulness and wis- 
dom; but I can not agree with his contention that the Government 
of the United States has an indefeasible title to Pearl Harbor, ir- 
respective of the maintenance or abrogation of the reciprocity 
treaty now existing. The grant of an usufructory interest in 
that harbor was made in consideration of the provisions of that 
treaty, not in perpetuity, but constructively during the life of the 
treaty. It is a part of the treaty, and in my judgment is insep- 
arable from it. Its abrogation fprminates all of its subsisting pro- 
visions, and it would be a violent assumption to hold that the 
rights vested thereby would continue to exist after the basis upon 
which they stand had been destroyed by the action of the Ameri- 
can Government. 

I can not see any validity in the proposition that the American 
Government can exercise its right to terminate the treaty in 
twelve months after notice, and notwithstanding that termina- 
tion hold on to one of the chief considerations of the grant. To 
do so, even if we had the power to do it, would be a manifest 
fraud on the Hawaiian Government, and could never find sup- 
port and countenance in the moral sense of the American people. 
No such proposition ever entered into the negotiations which cul- 
minated in that convention, or in its renewal, nor has it ever ex- 
isted, nor does it exist to-day in the understanding of the Ha- 
waiian Government. Such is the statement not only of the pre- 
mier of the Hawaiian Government, but also of Mr. Bayard, late 
Secretary of State. 

If that group of islands shoitld pass by voluntary cession into 
the sovereignty of a European state, or, through the operations of 
the peaceful invasion of the Japanese, which during the last ten 
years has increased that population from 2,700 to nearly if not 
quite 32,000, should become directly or indirectly absorbed into 
the Japanese system, I can not for one moment believe that any 
such pretension of the United States to the ownership of Pearl 
Harbor would be admitted by any court of international arbitra- 
tion. In the face of such conditions, either the one or the other of 
which is more than a prol^ability, the assertion of the Menroe doc- 
trine or of an exclusive proprietary interest in Pearl Harbor would 
inevitably precipitate another foreign war. Irrespective of any 
other consideration, the avoidance of such a risk is, in my judg- 
ment, of transcendent importance. 

Mr. Speaker, the splendid domain of the Hawaiian Islands, sitn- 
ailed within the arc of our existing possessions, is to-day offered 
with all rights of sovereignty to the United States as the free gift 
of the existing and established Government, together with all pub- 
lic lands and property, and with no condition whatsoever beyond 
the assumption of the public debt to the maximum amount of 
$4,000,000. If ac-cepted by the passage of this measiire, that great 
entrepot, lying in the highway of the future commerce of the 
a-158 



13 

East and the West, will psaccfully pass into the possession of tho 
American people, assuring to them perpetual immunity from hos- 
tile attack, a stratej^'ic position of incalculable valne in time of 
war. a harbor of refuse in storm or cahmiity, and a magniticent 
supply station for our Navy and merchant marine through all the 
exigencies of onr country's future. 

If. on the contrary. Congress shuts the door upon this tender, 
the Hawaiian Islands must of necessity pass under foreign domin- 
ion. Not one of the constituent elements of the Hawaiian popu- 
lation is suffici ntly strong to maintain for any prolonged per.od 
of time an independent form of government against internecine 
contiict or foreign au'gress.on. If we re. me to extend our own 
sovere gnty and protection, the Un'ted States can not. with any 
showot .iustice or sanction of right recognizable by other nations, 
invoke the principles of the Monroe doctrine against a voluntary 
treaty of cession to Great Britain or to Germany or to France, 
which may become necessary to the preservation of the rights and 
the protect on ot the lives of the Hawaiian people against domestic 
or foreign violence. 

But whether as a matter of principle the Monroe doctrine could 
be applied or whether it could not be, yet, nevertheless, in the ab- 
sence of a voluntary cession to a European power, the gravitation 
to Japan and finally absorption by that country will be the inevi- 
table destiny of the Hawaiian people. Under the constitution of 
that Republic it is easy to be seen that it is only a matter of time 
when the Japanese population may lawfully acquire control of all 
the legislative and administrative functions of the Government, 
in which event the transition to a colonial system, autonomous 
in Its character, but yielding allegiance to the Emperor, would be 
altogether too imperceptible to justify interference at any par- 
ticular period of time, or even to render interference possible 
without a war with that Empire. Thus, by a movement similar to 
those which have hei-etofore characterized the migration of na- 
tions, there would be eventually precipitated that greatest of all 
conceivable calamities, the planting of an Asiatic population and 
the founding of an Asiatic cult two-thirds of the stretch across 

Mr.' Speaker, another point of contention against this measure 
is that by the acquisition of these islands we will largely increase 
our coast line necessary to be defended, and therelore the acqui- 
sition would be a source of weakness rather than of strength. 
There is no force in this contention. Pearl Harbor is the only 
landlocked harbor in the entire Hawaiian group, and the only 
place that could be made available as a naval base. In the pos- 
session of the United States, no foreign enemy could maintain a 
lodgment anvwhere on the entire coast line for any purpose what- 
soever. Susceptible of being made as impregnab.e as Gibraltar, 
it has the superior advantage of being a refuge agamst storm as 
well as against superior forces, while it is a coign of vantage 
from which every trade route in the Southern Pacific can be 
flanked, giving unparalleled facilities for the assailing or detend- 
ing commerce, and absolutely dominating not only the island 
coast line, but also every ocean highway from Alaska to the 
Equator. 

After traversing all the waters of the globe. I know of no posi- 
tion which can be so cheaply fortifii d or maintained, which will 
give to the Government so great an influence in maritime com- 
merce, and which can be made so tremendously effective in the 
possible conflicts of the future. 
uM58 



14 

Aside from strategic considerations, common justice to a weak 
and defenseless neighbor demands ttaat the United States shall 
either recognize the neuti-ality obligations of a noncombatant or 
else shall eliminate those obligations from the forum ot future con- 
tentions by an incorporation into our own system. We are to-day 
using the Island of Oahu as a base of supplies and a naval station 
in open detiauce of the well-recognized laws governing neutral 
powers and in absolute contradiction of our own demand upon all 
other nations in the world. 

Can anyone doubt that the principles of the Alabama case would 
determine the judgment of any court of international arbitration 
if a call for damages should be herearter made upon Hawaii by 
the Government of Spain? Can anyone doubt that the collection 
of a judgment by seizure of Hawaiian revenues, or the occu- 
pation of Hawaiian territory until satisfaction was rendered, 
would be upheld by European nations in spite of the Monroe dec- 
trine unless the United States paid the award? Our action al- 
ready taken is absolutely indefensible upon any other theory than 
that the treaty already concluded gives quasi jurisdictional rights 
pending ratification. 

The annexation of Hawaii is wholly disconnected from and in- 
dependent of any questions growing out of our contest with Spain. 
Repeating what I have heretofore said, this subject in one form 
or another has been before the American people and before Con- 
gress for over fifty years, and it would have been accomplished 
long ago had it not been for the contentions of political parties 
and the overshadowing exigencies of the civil war. No proposi- 
tion of colonial establishment has ever entered into the negotia- 
tions of the two Governments. The treaty of 1893 and also that of 
1897 both provided that the Hawaiian Islands shall be incorporated 
into the territory of the United States as an integral part thereof, 
and shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii, and as such shall 
be governed by such laws as Congress shall enact. 

The undertaking to connect this subject with the fate of the 
Philippine Islands, of Puerto Rico, is simply and solely a makeshift 
of the opposition to defeat this measure by the sinuous arts of par- 
liamentar}' tactics, notwithstanding the fact thata vast majority of 
the American people have already substantially voted for annex- 
ation and that a majority of both Houses of this Congress are 
waiting to vote for it at the earliest possible opportunity. 

Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, although for twenty years I 
have been convinced of the wisdom of this proceeding from every 
standpoint of view, present and future, yet, laying aside all other 
considerations which relate to commercial development and the 
progress of civilization, it is enough for me to know that the 
President of the United States, charged with the responsibility of 
prosecuting this war to a successful issue, regards the annexation 
of the Hawaiian Islands as a military necessity. With that knowl- 
edge I will give him my loyal support, and I will never consent 
that this session of Congress shall adjourn until these resolutions 
have been fully acted upon. 

Mr. Speaker, there is no novelty in the objections which are 
urged against this measure. They were urged against the pur- 
chase of Louisiana in 1803. The Federalists of that day chal- 
lenged the constitutionality of the acquisition, and even Mr. Jef- 
ferson (luestioned it. But Congress and the Supreme Court de- 
cided otherwise. They were urged against the annexation of 
Texas by the Abolitionists of the North and by many statesmen 
of the South. Whole tomes of statistics were summoned to prove 

24,58 



15 

that the heterogeneous population gathered within those districts 
coiild never be ampiiorated, and would prove to bo an eternal 
menace to our republican institutions. But they were annexed 
nevertheless, and to-day thoy are teeming with wealth, inte.li- 
gence, and industrial energy. They were urged against the ac- 
qui-^ition of New Mexico and California, and one of the greatest 
Si eeches Webster ever made was an invective against that terra 
incognita. Nevertheless, nearly S'JO.OOO.OOO was given as the price 
of that territorv.aud it has ja-oven to bo an inexhaustible store- 
house of miner;"il and agricultural wealth. Thi^y were urged still 
more vehemently a-ainst the {lurchase of Alaska, and Mr. Seward 
was charged with political lunacy lor paying eight millions of good 
money for a region of eternal icebergs. But. Mr. iSpea'er. in all 
these so-called uneonstitutional, irrational, and unstatesniaiilike 
performances we builded wiser than we knew, and out of tliose 
vast regions of tropical jungle and arctic waste a great nation 
has grown up to subdue the sterile places of the earth and to bless 
humanity. Who to-chiy would turn backward this wonderful 
march of progress? W" ho would not rather carry it forward, re- 
lying upon the insjiirations and the strength of American intelli- 
gence and upon the providence of Almighty God? 

Mr. Speaker, it is urged that the people of the Hawaiian Islands 
are incapable of self-government, and therefore annexation must 
necessarily be hostile to the best interests of the American people. 
Of the present constituent elements of Hawaiian population, the 
Chinese, numbering nearly 23,000, can safely be regarded as only 
temporary sojourners in the islands. With the application of 
American laws aga nst further immigration, the immediate outgo 
01 this element wdl begin; and in a comparatively short period of 
time they will become greatly reduced in point of numbers, if 
they do not entirely disappear. The Japanese are fairly good ma- 
terial for future citizenship. They are acqu'sitive of knowledge, 
industrious and economical, and easily molded in the forms and 
usages of the society in which they locate. 

Taking the native Hawaiians, Portuguese, the British, the Ger- 
mans, and the Americans into consideration, the percentage of 
intelligence existing at the present time among these elements is 
as large as that which exists in any of the new sections of our 
own country. Out of 15,191 Portuguese residents, 48.8 per cent 
were born on the islands. The percentage of industrials is over 
91 per cent of the entire working population, fully up to the show- 
ing of the most advanced nations of the world. Of 9;i,l0') people 
over G years of age. Go.O per cent are able to read and write. Ex- 
cluding the Portuguese, the Japanese, and the Chmese, the per- 
centage of those able to read and write rises to nearly 86 per cent. 

The percentage of children attending school is still more re- 
markable. The total number of children within the school age- 
viz. 6 to 15— was reported in isy» to be 14,280, out of which the 
school attendants were 18,744, or 9(5.2 per cent, an increase of 
nearly 15 per cent over 1890and over 25 per cent over 1884. While 
the natives of full Hawaiian blood appear to be decreasing, the 
native born of mixed Hawaiian stock is very largely on the in- 
crease, such births rising from 1,568 in 18'i0 to 2.-590 m 1896, a 
gain of 65 per cent. The children born in the islands of parents 
both foreign have increased from 5,018 in 1890 to 8,839 in 1890, a 
gain of Go per cent. 

These increases are mostly among Hawaiians, Europeans, and 
Americans, showing the rise of a new stock thoroughly amena- 
ble to the influences of Anglican civilization, into which it is rap- 
3458 



mt!^!^"V ""- ^UNbKtb^ 




013 717 904 



16 

idly mersing year by year. The contention, therefoi'e, that there 
is anj' antagonism, physical, moral, intellectual, or social, between 
the people who can be regarded as permanent residents of the Ha- 
waiian Islands and the people of the United States is no more 
valid than the early contention that the people of Lomsiai'a, 
Texas. New Mexico, and California would never coalesce with 
the Anglo-Saxon popiilation of the original States. 

COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

Mr. Speaker, I have been considering this measure more par- 
ticularly from the standpoint of the proposition that the acquisi- 
tion of the Hawaiian Islands at this time is necessary for the 
].roi)er protection of the Pacific coast. A word or two upon the 
commercial side of this question as it relates to the future pros- 
perity of the United States. For a quarter of a century the de- 
maud has come from every quarter of our country for the enlarge- 
ment of our foreign commerce, and yet during all that time not a 
single measure of substantial importance has ever been enacted 
by Congress or by any commercial body of the United States which 
constit utes a basis upon which that enlargement can proceed. 

Outside of Honolulu and the cities of Mexico and (iaudalajara 
there is not an American office of exchange m any foreign port of 
the Western Hemispliere or in the oriental world where an Ameri- 
can negotiation can be carried on. Every commercial bill, every 
loan of money, every mercantile and affreightment contract, has 
to be negotiated in an English office and pay tribute in one form 
or another to English enterprise. Everywhere, in Mexico, in 
Central and South America, in Polynesia, in India, in Ceylon, in 
the Straits Settlements, in China, in Japan, and even in Hawaii, 
English institutions exist, founded under the broad, far-reaching 
policy of the British Government to increase and monopolize 
every branch of foreign trade, and not until the people of this 
country outgrow the swaddling clothes bequeathed to them by 
the narrow policy of "insular isolation" will they ever have a 
permanent share in the mighty commerce which beats its v/ings 
in the waves of the broad Pacific. 

In the face of the universally recognized need of the Nicaragua 
Canal we have been wasting precious time haggling and splitting 
hairs over the difference between minimum and maximum esti- 
mates of cost when the gain to American commerce in every year 
after its construction will be more than the entire expenditure. 
The progressive enterprise of the United States, the manufactur- 
ers of the North, the cotton growers of the South, the farmers of 
Oregon and California, all demand a short route between the 
oceans, and the peerless voyage of the Oregon to join the front 
battle line in our war with Spain emphasizes that demand with 
an eloquence beyond the power of human speech. 

The construction of this great waterway connecting the two 
oceans, following upon the acquisition of the Hawaiian Islands-, 
and the independence of Cuba, will I'each a consummation not 
less magnificent than those splendid transactions which in the' 
early history of our country laid the foundations of national 
wealth, national power, and national glory, all which have been 
the wonder of the world and the honorable pride of every Ameri- 
can citizen. Powerful to resist attack from without, loving peace 
at home and abroad, this great country will then have reached- 
the acme of its destiny, and its beneficent influence upon the na- 
tions and the peoples of the earth will be the glory of the twentieth 
century. 
3458 

O 



